"Now that Linux is the most popular free Unix-like operating system, it shouldn't be a surprise that some projects have begun treating non-Linux operating systems as second-class citizens. This isn't out of contempt for the BSDs or OpenSolaris, it's just a matter of limited manpower: if almost all the users of the application have a Linux operating system and if all the core developers are using Linux themselves, it's difficult to keep supporting other operating systems. But sometimes the choice to leave out support for other operating systems is explicitly made, e.g. when the developers want to implement some innovative features that require functionality that is (at least for now) only available in the Linux kernel."

Do folks here still bother to analyze comments or just prefer to mod down anything that questions the majority's view?

I think my comment made it pretty clear that we need something to stand up to Windows/Mac as an open platform. But the corollary to that was "Why do we need more than one of those [open platforms] to do so?"

But then I got foolish and asked "Why should Linux necessarily try to bend over to please the BSDs?"

The replies along the lines of "this is how O.S.es have -- and should always -- been done" do not answer my question; the reason why we're having this situation in the first place is because the Linux ecosystem develops some of its things in its own corner or tries to get rid of legacy stuff.

Why should Windows developers like Adobe bend over and please Linux users? To paraphrase Poettinger, these developers are already writing code for the most popular OS on the planet. Why should they bother?
It's exactly the same argument.

Why should Windows developers like Adobe bend over and please Linux users? To paraphrase Poettinger, these developers are already writing code for the most popular OS on the planet. Why should they bother?
It's exactly the same argument.

Nobody bent over. Adobe had its own reasons to support Linux. They didn't do it for some ideological reasons. The effort at first was minimal but with recent developments in mobile space, they're actually putting some weight behind Linux support because it makes economical sense for THEM.

In the areas where Linux is thriving, it isn't thriving because it's ideologically better. It is thriving by providing ample technical and economical benefits. It's not about having whatever arguments.

The market and industry have changed to accommodate Linux because it was beneficial and not doing so meant competitive disadvantage but even then it didn't happen by already established products or projects graciously helping adoption. Linux fought its way up.

So, there is no such argument that you're referring to. There never has been and never will be. If *BSD want to be considered as primary target platform for system and desktop developments, it should generate its own weight and be able to justify and, basically, force the effort. Whining or arguing about it simply doesn't matter.